Latest Newstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2014:/thenewswire/22011-12-05T10:12:01ZMovable Type 3.2White House Chief Of Staff Calls On Republicans To Take Up Jobs Billtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9970772011-10-06T00:02:10Z2011-12-05T10:12:01ZWASHINGTON -- Faced with unbending opposition from congressional Republicans, the Obama administration signed off on changes to the president's much touted jobs bill on Thursday,...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- Faced with unbending opposition from congressional Republicans, the Obama administration signed off on changes to the president's much touted jobs bill on Thursday, endorsing a five percent surtax on income over one million dollars a year to help pick up the $447 billion tab. </p>
<p>But even after tinkering with the American Jobs Act, top aides to the president were left pleading, publicly, for legislative action. They weren't even demanding that House Republicans move the whole package, though that remained the stated goal. At this points, just parts of it would do. </p>
<p>"I would like to see anything start to be brought [to the floor]," White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley told The Huffington Post following his speech at the Washington Ideas Forum on Wednesday. "The [issue] is, get moving. It is now October, every three weeks they are gone. And they have a lot to do in a short time."</p>
<p>Time, indeed, does not appear to be of the essence to House Republicans, whose leadership has said it won't bring the president's job package in its current form to the floor. The president's proposal may include previously supported GOP provisions (an extension of the payroll tax cut); it may include infrastructure spending that individual Republican lawmakers have sought; it may come at a time when lawmakers unanimously agree on the need to address the jobs crisis. But it also calls for taxes to be raised and that remains anathema in the Grand Old Party. </p>
<p>"If they don't bring it to the floor, the question is, 'Okay, fine, you don't like the president's plan, what is your plan that's real?' asked Daley. </p>
<p>The debate over the president's job bill has quickly become more abstract than substantive. Ask Democrats on the Hill privately and there is quick agreement that, at some point in time, the package will have to be broken up and considered bit by bit. </p>
<p>"If it doesn't pass, we will strip it into components," confirmed one Democratic lawmaker. </p>
<p>Senior administration officials have said the president won't veto components of the plan. So the only question is: When does the paring down actually happen? </p>
<p>And yet, there is a clear explanation for what Democrats are now doing. Forty-nine percent of respondents to the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=101521" target="_hplink">most recent ABC News/<em>Washington Post</em> poll</a> said they trusted President Obama more than congressional Republicans to handle job creation, compared to 34 percent who said they trusted Republicans more. So when asked whether the White House would be willing to consider, say, an extension of the payroll tax cut on its own, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett stuck to the script, even despite Daley's deviations.</p>
<p>"We want to push for the whole thing," she told The Huffington Post after speaking at the Washington Ideas Forum. "And we will see what Congress does."</p>
<p>That mindset may also help explain why the administration endorsed a pay-for provision it once rejected. Raising the tax rates on income only above a million dollars was once privately cast aside as a political misstep -- an inherent concession that the wealthy in America were only those who made at least seven figures. Yet on Wednesday, both Daley and Jarrett said they embraced the idea as a substitute for the tax policy changes that the president had suggested as a means to pay for his jobs plan. </p>
<p>"The president always said he is open to other alternatives, but the fundamentals of the bill are intact," said Jarrett. </p>
<p>The proposals' primary author, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), was slightly more effusive. "This could be a turning point," he said of his own proposal. "The only way we will get the ability to raise revenues, whether for deficit reduction programs or anything else, is if the public starts being on our side. The Republican senators and congressmen will be the last to turn around on that."</p>
<p>But the problem remains: A comprehensive campaign to build up public pressure on Republican lawmakers on the issue of tax hikes will undoubtedly outlast the window for passing the president's job plan. </p>
<p>"Right," conceded Schumer. "But it is a building block and important building block to say that we were willing to pay for it by taxing millionaires and billionaires. The president and the Democrats in Congress are on the same page here. And it is a much crisper, cleaner argument."</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315392/thumbs/s-ALSO-ON-THE-HUFFINGTON-POST-hugebw.jpg"></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList= 517173829&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
White House Chief Of Staff Calls On Republicans To Take Up Jobs Billtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9970772011-10-06T00:02:10Z2011-12-05T10:12:01ZWASHINGTON -- Faced with unbending opposition from congressional Republicans, the Obama administration signed off on changes to the president's much touted jobs bill on Thursday,...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- Faced with unbending opposition from congressional Republicans, the Obama administration signed off on changes to the president's much touted jobs bill on Thursday, endorsing a five percent surtax on income over one million dollars a year to help pick up the $447 billion tab. </p>
<p>But even after tinkering with the American Jobs Act, top aides to the president were left pleading, publicly, for legislative action. They weren't even demanding that House Republicans move the whole package, though that remained the stated goal. At this points, just parts of it would do. </p>
<p>"I would like to see anything start to be brought [to the floor]," White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley told The Huffington Post following his speech at the Washington Ideas Forum on Wednesday. "The [issue] is, get moving. It is now October, every three weeks they are gone. And they have a lot to do in a short time."</p>
<p>Time, indeed, does not appear to be of the essence to House Republicans, whose leadership has said it won't bring the president's job package in its current form to the floor. The president's proposal may include previously supported GOP provisions (an extension of the payroll tax cut); it may include infrastructure spending that individual Republican lawmakers have sought; it may come at a time when lawmakers unanimously agree on the need to address the jobs crisis. But it also calls for taxes to be raised and that remains anathema in the Grand Old Party. </p>
<p>"If they don't bring it to the floor, the question is, 'Okay, fine, you don't like the president's plan, what is your plan that's real?' asked Daley. </p>
<p>The debate over the president's job bill has quickly become more abstract than substantive. Ask Democrats on the Hill privately and there is quick agreement that, at some point in time, the package will have to be broken up and considered bit by bit. </p>
<p>"If it doesn't pass, we will strip it into components," confirmed one Democratic lawmaker. </p>
<p>Senior administration officials have said the president won't veto components of the plan. So the only question is: When does the paring down actually happen? </p>
<p>And yet, there is a clear explanation for what Democrats are now doing. Forty-nine percent of respondents to the <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/?p=101521" target="_hplink">most recent ABC News/<em>Washington Post</em> poll</a> said they trusted President Obama more than congressional Republicans to handle job creation, compared to 34 percent who said they trusted Republicans more. So when asked whether the White House would be willing to consider, say, an extension of the payroll tax cut on its own, senior adviser Valerie Jarrett stuck to the script, even despite Daley's deviations.</p>
<p>"We want to push for the whole thing," she told The Huffington Post after speaking at the Washington Ideas Forum. "And we will see what Congress does."</p>
<p>That mindset may also help explain why the administration endorsed a pay-for provision it once rejected. Raising the tax rates on income only above a million dollars was once privately cast aside as a political misstep -- an inherent concession that the wealthy in America were only those who made at least seven figures. Yet on Wednesday, both Daley and Jarrett said they embraced the idea as a substitute for the tax policy changes that the president had suggested as a means to pay for his jobs plan. </p>
<p>"The president always said he is open to other alternatives, but the fundamentals of the bill are intact," said Jarrett. </p>
<p>The proposals' primary author, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), was slightly more effusive. "This could be a turning point," he said of his own proposal. "The only way we will get the ability to raise revenues, whether for deficit reduction programs or anything else, is if the public starts being on our side. The Republican senators and congressmen will be the last to turn around on that."</p>
<p>But the problem remains: A comprehensive campaign to build up public pressure on Republican lawmakers on the issue of tax hikes will undoubtedly outlast the window for passing the president's job plan. </p>
<p>"Right," conceded Schumer. "But it is a building block and important building block to say that we were willing to pay for it by taxing millionaires and billionaires. The president and the Democrats in Congress are on the same page here. And it is a much crisper, cleaner argument."</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315392/thumbs/s-ALSO-ON-THE-HUFFINGTON-POST-hugebw.jpg"></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList= 517173829&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Herman Cain's 2004 Campaign: 'Godless' Gays And Planned Parenthood Eugenicstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9966312011-10-05T19:47:23Z2011-12-05T10:12:01ZWASHINGTON -- Herman Cain's widespread appeal, which has helped him ascend the ranks of the Republican primary field, stems in part from his ability to...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- Herman Cain's widespread appeal, which has helped him ascend the ranks of the Republican primary field, stems in part from his ability to cast himself as the reluctant candidate. Cain is known as a successful businessman first and a motivational speaker and author second. He often tries to portray his run for the White House as an answer to the call of a unique time and challenges.</p>
<p>“I’m not a professional politician," he says. "I’m a professional problem solver." </p>
<p>But if Cain is not a professional politician, it's not entirely by choice. He ran for a Senate seat in Georgia in 2004 but lost in the Republican primary to current Sen. Johnny Isakson. That period of Cain's political life has gotten scant attention even as his White House bid has transformed from a quixotic quest to something more serious. That might be because the Cain who ran for Senate is a different type of candidate than the one running for the White House.</p>
<p>What stands out in particular is the extent to which the former Godfather's Pizza CEO used sharply conservative cultural issues to set himself apart from his fellow Republicans. An archived search of Cain's campaign website shows that he routinely attacked Isakson for wavering on abortion rights, chastising him in an early radio ad for voting "to allow abortions in our tax-funded military hospitals overseas." (The bill had simply allowed servicemen or women serving overseas to use personal funds on abortion.)</p>
<p>In an early television ad he introduced himself, first and foremost, as a believer of life from conception. </p>
<center><object width="570" height="416"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/nOLsgnM21dM?version=3&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/nOLsgnM21dM?version=3&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="570" height="416" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object></center>
<p>In an issue paper on his website, meanwhile, he said he would oppose abortion in the case of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, as well as the use of tax dollars that "could encourage abortion as a 'solution' to problem pregnancies." </p>
<p><font size="2"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/98078892/Cain-Abortion">Cain Abortion</a></font><br/><object id="_ds_98078892" name="_ds_98078892" width="550" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=98078892&mem_id=683130&doc_type=pdf&fullscreen=0&allowdownload=1" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object><script type="text/javascript">var docstoc_docid="98078892";var docstoc_title="Cain Abortion";var docstoc_urltitle="Cain Abortion";</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://i.docstoccdn.com/js/check-flash.js"></script></p>
<p>The website also featured a "Contract with Georgia," in which he listed ten priorities he would pursue upon entering office. Third on the list was "Protect life which begins at conception."</p>
<p><font size="2"><a href="http://www.docstoc.com/docs/98079704/Cain-Contract">Cain Contract</a></font><br/><object id="_ds_98079704" name="_ds_98079704" width="550" height="550" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" data="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"><param name="FlashVars" value="doc_id=98079704&mem_id=683130&doc_type=pdf&fullscreen=0&allowdownload=1" /><param name="movie" value="http://viewer.docstoc.com/"/><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /></object><script type="text/javascript">var docstoc_docid="98079704";var docstoc_title="Cain Contract";var docstoc_urltitle="Cain Contract";</script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://i.docstoccdn.com/js/check-flash.js"></script></p>
<p>Beyond the confines of a carefully managed campaign website, Cain was even more outspoken. He <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A58347-2004Jul17?language=printer" target="_hplink">told the</a> <em>Washington Post</em> that he considers "plausible" a theory that the abortion rights group, Planned Parenthood, was established to systematically lower the black population. </p>
<p>"One of the motivations was killing black babies," he said, "because they didn't want to deal with the problems of illiteracy and poverty."</p>
<p>His campaign dealt with cultural issues beyond abortion as well. When a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage was offered in the state of Georgia, he jumped to applaud its passage. </p>
<p>"We have a war on our moral fiber," he said, according to a Chattanooga Times Free Press article on February 22, 2004. "We will not allow the godless few to destroy our moral foundation."</p>
<p>Even substantive political debates were passed through the prism of culture and race. Arguing that Social Security needed to be disbanded and replaced with 401(k) plans and Individual Retirement Accounts, Cain made the case that the entitlement program was inherently biased against African Americans.</p>
<p>"If that's going to be a transfer from me to white people," Cain said of his own payments into the Social Security trust fund, "can't I at least give it to white people I like?"</p>
<p>The extent to which Cain the presidential candidate would back off from any of these positions is unclear. His campaign didn't return an email request for comment. He has <a href="http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/15/cain-planned-parenthood%E2%80%99s-mission-is-planned-genocide-of-black-babies/" target="_hplink">aired his suspicions</a> about Planned Parenthood-linked eugenics more recently than 2004, but his position on gay marriage is a bit <a href="http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/20/nom-herman-cain-all-talk-on-gay-marriage/" target="_hplink">more vague</a> now than it was back then.</p>
<p>What's noteworthy is the extent to which talk of race, abortion, or same-sex marriage rarely come up, either for Cain or any other Republican presidential candidate. A run for the Republican nomination for a Senate seat in Georgia is inherently different than a Republican presidential primary contest. But more than that, it's the current political and economic climate that is responsible for social issues taking a backseat. And for Cain, that climate has facilitated what's clearly been a beneficial evolution in his campaign narrative, allowing him to emphasize his business background rather than play the role of orthodox social conservative.</p>
<p><strong>Earlier on the Huffington Post:</strong></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517170474&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Darrell Issa Pressed To Add Bush Administration Program To Fast And Furious Investigationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9959402011-10-05T15:58:35Z2011-12-05T10:12:01ZWASHINGTON -- The long-simmering controversy surrounding the Department of Justice's Fast and Furious program took on a new level of import Tuesday amid the publication...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- The long-simmering controversy surrounding the Department of Justice's Fast and Furious program took on a new level of import Tuesday amid the publication of two major stories. </p>
<p>The first, and more damaging for the Obama administration, was <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html" target="_hplink">a CBS report</a> accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of making contradictory statements during a May 3, 2011 Judiciary Committee hearing when he said he had first heard about the program -- which allowed illegal guns to be sent into Mexico so that investigators could trace where they were going –- only "over the last few weeks." Internal Justice Department documents showed that Holder had, in fact, received memos discussing Fast and Furious almost a year before that hearing.</p>
<p>There were nuances to the story. Weekly DOJ reports like the one cited in the CBS story are stuffed with general information about a host of Department programs, making it possible if not excusable that Holder glossed over it at the time. Still, Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokesman, noted that Holder had said both in March and May of 2011 that he became aware of the "questionable tactics employed in the Fast and Furious Program in early 2011 when ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] agents first raised them publicly."</p>
<p>‪“As the documents provided to Congress show, not a single one of these reports referenced the controversial tactics that allowed guns to cross the border, and in fact, in one example provided to Congress consisted of a single sentence referencing a Phoenix-based operation," Schmaler added. "None of the handful of entries in 2010 regarding the Fast and Furious suggested there was anything amiss with that investigation requiring leadership to take corrective action or commit to memory this particular operation prior to the disturbing claims raised by ATF agents in the early part of 2011."</p>
<p>The distinction between knowledge that Fast and Furious exists and knowledge about the controversial aspects of the program may be a useful one. But it did little to assuage critics of the Justice Department's handling of the program, some of whom have called for an independent investigation into the Attorney General's testimony. (Full disclosure: my wife works for the Department of Justice.)</p>
<p>The second story to emerge on Tuesday provided some relief for the administration. The <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ATF_BUSH_ERA_PROBE?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" target="_hplink">Associated Press reported</a> that a program similar to Fast and Furious had been implemented under the Bush administration.</p>
<p>Far less is known about that program, Operation Wide Receiver -- which also allowed guns to be transferred to suspected traffickers for the purposes of tracking their movement -- mainly because it remained a secret during the previous administration. But to the extent that it was similar to Fast and Furious, it helped defuse the current controversy.</p>
<p>The chief driver of the Fast and Furious investigations, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), had pledged to look into the Bush administration when circumstances demanded it, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44648.html" target="_hplink">noting</a>, "many of the issues we’re working on began [with] President Bush or even before, and haven’t been solved." </p>
<p>And during a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe4Y2QUaOp8" target="_hplink">CNN interview</a> on Tuesday evening, he was pressed for the first time to address the work done by Obama's predecessor on arms trafficking.</p>
<p>“[W]e will get to the bottom of whether or not this practice in a smaller way may have begun on the Bush watch," he said. "We’re not putting it past any administration and giving anyone a pass. The American people and the people of Mexico expect us to have a zero tolerance for letting drugs come into our country or weapons go into Mexico.”</p>
<p>The remark certainly indicated a willingness to broaden the scope of the Fast and Furious investigation. But in a statement sent to The Huffington Post Tuesday night, Issa's press secretary on the Oversight committee, Becca Glover Watkins, hinted strongly that her office viewed throwing the Bush administration into the mix as a political distraction.</p>
<p>“The committee has received paltry few documents from the Justice Department about Operation Wide Receiver but Justice officials still have not made clear to committee investigators what did and did not take place in this operation," she said. "This far into the investigation, throwing out the 'Bush Administration did it too' defense reeks of desperation. If true, it would indicate that Obama Justice officials have engaged in an active effort to deceive Congress about gun-walking they knew had taken place but had strenuously denied until only recently.”</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315392/thumbs/s-ALSO-ON-THE-HUFFINGTON-POST-hugebw.jpg"></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517172876&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Darrell Issa Pressed To Add Bush Administration Program To Fast And Furious Investigationtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9959402011-10-05T15:58:35Z2011-12-05T10:12:01ZWASHINGTON -- The long-simmering controversy surrounding the Department of Justice's Fast and Furious program took on a new level of import Tuesday amid the publication...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- The long-simmering controversy surrounding the Department of Justice's Fast and Furious program took on a new level of import Tuesday amid the publication of two major stories. </p>
<p>The first, and more damaging for the Obama administration, was <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-31727_162-20115038-10391695.html" target="_hplink">a CBS report</a> accusing Attorney General Eric Holder of making contradictory statements during a May 3, 2011 Judiciary Committee hearing when he said he had first heard about the program -- which allowed illegal guns to be sent into Mexico so that investigators could trace where they were going –- only "over the last few weeks." Internal Justice Department documents showed that Holder had, in fact, received memos discussing Fast and Furious almost a year before that hearing.</p>
<p>There were nuances to the story. Weekly DOJ reports like the one cited in the CBS story are stuffed with general information about a host of Department programs, making it possible if not excusable that Holder glossed over it at the time. Still, Tracy Schmaler, a DOJ spokesman, noted that Holder had said both in March and May of 2011 that he became aware of the "questionable tactics employed in the Fast and Furious Program in early 2011 when ATF [Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives] agents first raised them publicly."</p>
<p>‪“As the documents provided to Congress show, not a single one of these reports referenced the controversial tactics that allowed guns to cross the border, and in fact, in one example provided to Congress consisted of a single sentence referencing a Phoenix-based operation," Schmaler added. "None of the handful of entries in 2010 regarding the Fast and Furious suggested there was anything amiss with that investigation requiring leadership to take corrective action or commit to memory this particular operation prior to the disturbing claims raised by ATF agents in the early part of 2011."</p>
<p>The distinction between knowledge that Fast and Furious exists and knowledge about the controversial aspects of the program may be a useful one. But it did little to assuage critics of the Justice Department's handling of the program, some of whom have called for an independent investigation into the Attorney General's testimony. (Full disclosure: my wife works for the Department of Justice.)</p>
<p>The second story to emerge on Tuesday provided some relief for the administration. The <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_ATF_BUSH_ERA_PROBE?SITE=KMOV&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT" target="_hplink">Associated Press reported</a> that a program similar to Fast and Furious had been implemented under the Bush administration.</p>
<p>Far less is known about that program, Operation Wide Receiver -- which also allowed guns to be transferred to suspected traffickers for the purposes of tracking their movement -- mainly because it remained a secret during the previous administration. But to the extent that it was similar to Fast and Furious, it helped defuse the current controversy.</p>
<p>The chief driver of the Fast and Furious investigations, House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), had pledged to look into the Bush administration when circumstances demanded it, <a href="http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1110/44648.html" target="_hplink">noting</a>, "many of the issues we’re working on began [with] President Bush or even before, and haven’t been solved." </p>
<p>And during a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe4Y2QUaOp8" target="_hplink">CNN interview</a> on Tuesday evening, he was pressed for the first time to address the work done by Obama's predecessor on arms trafficking.</p>
<p>“[W]e will get to the bottom of whether or not this practice in a smaller way may have begun on the Bush watch," he said. "We’re not putting it past any administration and giving anyone a pass. The American people and the people of Mexico expect us to have a zero tolerance for letting drugs come into our country or weapons go into Mexico.”</p>
<p>The remark certainly indicated a willingness to broaden the scope of the Fast and Furious investigation. But in a statement sent to The Huffington Post Tuesday night, Issa's press secretary on the Oversight committee, Becca Glover Watkins, hinted strongly that her office viewed throwing the Bush administration into the mix as a political distraction.</p>
<p>“The committee has received paltry few documents from the Justice Department about Operation Wide Receiver but Justice officials still have not made clear to committee investigators what did and did not take place in this operation," she said. "This far into the investigation, throwing out the 'Bush Administration did it too' defense reeks of desperation. If true, it would indicate that Obama Justice officials have engaged in an active effort to deceive Congress about gun-walking they knew had taken place but had strenuously denied until only recently.”</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315392/thumbs/s-ALSO-ON-THE-HUFFINGTON-POST-hugebw.jpg"></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517172876&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Harry Reid Offers New Way To Pay For Obama's Jobs Billtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9951672011-10-05T00:46:00Z2011-12-04T10:12:07ZWASHINGTON -- In an effort to secure more votes for the president's jobs plan, Senate Democrats are considering different ways of paying for the bill,...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- In an effort to secure more votes for the president's jobs plan, Senate Democrats are considering different ways of paying for the bill, including placing a greater tax burden on people whose incomes are more than $1 million a year. </p>
<p>Aides on Capitol Hill tell The Huffington Post that the new proposal could be formally unveiled as early as Wednesday. One top aide cautioned that the Democratic leadership was considering several ideas to pay for the American Jobs Act and had yet to settle on a final design. Although the White House did not comment on the new proposal, an administration official confirmed that it was notified of the search for alternative pay-fors prior to the millionaire surtax idea being leaked to the press. </p>
<p>By shifting gears on the pay-for provisions, the Democratic leadership is acknowledging that the current measures designed to pick up the cost of the jobs bill don't have the support of the entire caucus. The Obama administration <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/obama-jobs-bill-payments_n_958560.html" target="_hplink">had called for</a> the congressional super committee, already tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, to find additional savings to pay for the legislation, which includes a host of tax credits and stimulative spending measures. As guidance, the White House suggested limiting itemized deductions for individuals making more than $200,000 a year, eliminating tax subsidies for certain oil and gas companies, ending tax breaks for corporate jet owners, and treating capital gains earnings as ordinary income. </p>
<p>Oil-state Democrats had balked at that proposal. Others worried that it would have a sharp negative effect on charitable giving. </p>
<p>In a caucus meeting on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) entertained those concerns and offered a concession: He would replace the president's pay-for with one that put the burden on the shoulders of millionaires. </p>
<p>Whether the move will be enough to placate the full caucus is unclear. There are, conceivably, members who will oppose tax hikes even for the well-off. When Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed a new tax bracket for millionaires during the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts in December 2010, the proposal failed to overcome a filibuster. Still, Reid pitched the idea -- should it be chosen -- as the one that would get the party as close to 53 votes in the Senate as possible. </p>
<p>That, of course, doesn't come close to guaranteeing passage. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could block a vote on the jobs act by holding on to 40 votes within his own party. And that doesn't even take into consideration the obstacles in the House, where the prospects seem utterly remote after Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said on Tuesday that he had no plans to bring the legislation to the floor.</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315392/thumbs/s-ALSO-ON-THE-HUFFINGTON-POST-hugebw.jpg"></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList= 517172198&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Harry Reid Offers New Way To Pay For Obama's Jobs Billtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9951672011-10-05T00:46:00Z2011-12-04T10:12:07ZWASHINGTON -- In an effort to secure more votes for the president's jobs plan, Senate Democrats are considering different ways of paying for the bill,...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- In an effort to secure more votes for the president's jobs plan, Senate Democrats are considering different ways of paying for the bill, including placing a greater tax burden on people whose incomes are more than $1 million a year. </p>
<p>Aides on Capitol Hill tell The Huffington Post that the new proposal could be formally unveiled as early as Wednesday. One top aide cautioned that the Democratic leadership was considering several ideas to pay for the American Jobs Act and had yet to settle on a final design. Although the White House did not comment on the new proposal, an administration official confirmed that it was notified of the search for alternative pay-fors prior to the millionaire surtax idea being leaked to the press. </p>
<p>By shifting gears on the pay-for provisions, the Democratic leadership is acknowledging that the current measures designed to pick up the cost of the jobs bill don't have the support of the entire caucus. The Obama administration <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/12/obama-jobs-bill-payments_n_958560.html" target="_hplink">had called for</a> the congressional super committee, already tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction, to find additional savings to pay for the legislation, which includes a host of tax credits and stimulative spending measures. As guidance, the White House suggested limiting itemized deductions for individuals making more than $200,000 a year, eliminating tax subsidies for certain oil and gas companies, ending tax breaks for corporate jet owners, and treating capital gains earnings as ordinary income. </p>
<p>Oil-state Democrats had balked at that proposal. Others worried that it would have a sharp negative effect on charitable giving. </p>
<p>In a caucus meeting on Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) entertained those concerns and offered a concession: He would replace the president's pay-for with one that put the burden on the shoulders of millionaires. </p>
<p>Whether the move will be enough to placate the full caucus is unclear. There are, conceivably, members who will oppose tax hikes even for the well-off. When Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) proposed a new tax bracket for millionaires during the debate over extending the Bush tax cuts in December 2010, the proposal failed to overcome a filibuster. Still, Reid pitched the idea -- should it be chosen -- as the one that would get the party as close to 53 votes in the Senate as possible. </p>
<p>That, of course, doesn't come close to guaranteeing passage. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) could block a vote on the jobs act by holding on to 40 votes within his own party. And that doesn't even take into consideration the obstacles in the House, where the prospects seem utterly remote after Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said on Tuesday that he had no plans to bring the legislation to the floor.</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315392/thumbs/s-ALSO-ON-THE-HUFFINGTON-POST-hugebw.jpg"></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList= 517172198&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Former McCain Adviser Offers Oil, Gas Industry A Dealtag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9930832011-10-03T23:28:00Z2011-12-03T10:12:02ZWASHINGTON -- A host of industry experts, including a former adviser to Sen. John McCain, are urging lawmakers not to stigmatize either green energy or...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- A host of industry experts, including a former adviser to Sen. John McCain, are urging lawmakers not to stigmatize either green energy or the government's role in promoting it after the abrupt downfall of Solyndra, the now-bankrupt solar equipment manufacturer.</p>
<p>"People ought to resist [demonizing alternative energy] because it's really stupid to blame solar in general for some people not managing a corporation well," said R. James Woolsey, chairman of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the former CIA director under Bill Clinton. "Solar ... keeps getting cheaper and more efficient all the time, and steadily. And I think the folks you see going after solar as a result of all of this, some of them probably have quite a substantial interest in maybe coal or whatever. I think that anybody who follows solar closely realizes how the changes are coming."</p>
<p>In an interview with The Huffington Post, Woolsey, who <a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/R-James-Woolsey-Jr/103815352990876" target="_hplink">advised McCain's 2008 presidential campaign</a>, offered a deal for those critics arguing that loan guarantees for alternative energy companies should be eliminated following Solyndra's downfall. </p>
<p>"I would be willing to make this trade," said Woolsey, who has long been an outspoken champion of alternative energy source development. "We won't have subsidies for solar and wind if we pull out every single penny of subsidies to coal and oil, including all of the tax subsidies. Every penny. Take it away, and then let solar and wind do it on their own."</p>
<p>Far from absolving the Obama White House's political management of the Solyndra crisis, Woolsey's comments are simply meant to add a bit of sobriety to the current energy policy debate. At a time when America needs to encourage a diverse set of sources, it's retreating back to the norm. </p>
<p>"'Drill, baby, drill' does nothing to break the oil cartel," said Woolsey. </p>
<p>It's unclear just how much damage Solyndra's scandal has done to the alternative and green energy movements that were built, in part, on the promise to wean America off its oil dependence. In the wake of Solyndra's bankruptcy, small-government conservatives and like-minded lawmakers have suggested scrapping the loan guarantee program that originated under George W. Bush. The more pointed critiques have been directed at the Obama administration for failing to heed recurring warnings about that company's specific standing. On Monday, <em>The New York Times</em> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/us/politics/e-mails-reveal-white-house-concerns-over-solyndra.html?smid=tw-nytimes&seid=auto" target="_hplink">reported on more emails</a> revealing that the White House was concerned Solyndra would collapse even before the president visited its headquarters in May 2010 to tout the $535 million loan guarantee it had received. </p>
<p>Confronted with these internal communications in the past, the administration has chosen a two-pronged pushback, noting the longstanding tradition of Republican lawmakers championing loan guarantees for green-sector companies in their own districts and insisting that, among all companies on which to bet, a solar equipment manufacturer was a morally solid pick. </p>
<p>"No, I don't," President Barack Obama said on Monday when asked by ABC News whether he regretted the loan. "Not every business is going to succeed."</p>
<p>That appeared to be the thinking of the Bush administration as well when the loan guarantee program was established. And on Monday, a top Department of Energy official from that administration acknowledged that he too would have signed off on the Solyndra project, had the choice been up to him.</p>
<p>“I am glad I was not in that chair to get that call, because from what I know of the facts right now, I probably would have made the same decision," said Walter Streight Howes <a href="http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2011/10/03/bush-official-says-he-would-have-okd-solyndra-loan-backing/" target="_hplink">in an interview with</a> <em>Platts Energy Week</em>. The loan guarantee, he added, was a "good gamble." </p>
<p>In hindsight, the gamble wasn't good; it was a bust. And for those who champion alternative and green energy, it has produced the anxiety-inducing prospect that years of public relations work and political persuasion have been undone by the missteps of a single company. </p>
<p>"We may be at a white-hot political moment, but I'm not sure that it will last that long," said an optimistic Paul Bledsoe, a senior adviser with the Bipartisan Policy Center, an influential think tank that works on energy-related policy, among other issues. "Companies fail all the time ... especially in new technologies. I think the more people examine the details here, the more they are going to want to better structure our existing approaches. The opportunity is to examine our current subsidies and find a way to make them work better for less money." </p>
<p>Bledsoe's hope of realigning taxpayer incentives for energy production lies with the congressional super committee tasked with finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. Reform that eliminates some tax code expenditures or government subsidies could help level a playing field in which, <a href="http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/ " target="_hplink">in FY2010 alone</a>, $2.82 billion went to natural gas and petroleum interests (through direct expenditures, tax expenditures, research and development funds, and loan guarantees), $2.49 billion to nuclear energy interests and $1.13 billion to solar interests. </p>
<p>Leveling the playing field won't be easy, as a horde of industry-financed lobbyists stand ready to protect the carve-outs their clients have long enjoyed. But the larger task facing Woolsey and even some <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/retired-republicans-quietly-try-to-shift-gop-climate-change-focus-20110930" target="_hplink">environmentally conscious Republicans</a> may be to persuade voters that the government has a role to play in creating a new energy economy at all.</p>
<p>"Probably the biggest setback is that neither conservatives nor liberals, Republicans nor Democrats, at a very senior policy-making level are dealing with the problem. They're dealing with other problems, but they're not dealing with the key one, I think, which is our oil dependence," said the former CIA director. </p>
<p>Pivoting to solutions, Woolsey noted that the government could "bring antitrust cases and break up cartels" as a way of limiting the stranglehold of foreign oil. But, he added, "there are some things that will have a big advantage over the long run that are worth subsidizing in the near term." </p>
<p><strong>Earlier on HuffPost:</strong></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517157626&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
White House Talks Jobs With Super Committee Memberstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9923922011-10-03T18:07:00Z2011-12-03T10:12:02ZWASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama pushed Congress again on Monday to bring his American Jobs Act to a vote, promising to "put as much pressure"...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama pushed Congress again on Monday to bring his American Jobs Act to a vote, promising to "put as much pressure" as he could on lawmakers to act with haste. But with growing recalcitrance among Republicans, resistance among some Democrats and an election season heating up, the prospects for quick action look increasingly slim. </p>
<p>The Democratic leadership is now taking more seriously the possibility that if components of the jobs plan are to be enacted, they'll have to be attached to the recommendations produced by the congressional super committee in charge of finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. </p>
<p>On Monday, the president offered his customary insistence about passing his plan -- which includes major tax cuts to encourage hiring, insurance for the unemployed, and money for infrastructure and school repair -- in an expedient manner. </p>
<p>"It's been several weeks now since I sent up the American Jobs Act, and as I've been saying on the road, I want it back. I'm ready to sign it," he said. "My expectation is, now that we're in the month of October, that we'll schedule a vote before the end of this month. I'll be talking to Senator Reid, [Senator] McConnell, as well as Speaker Boehner and [Representative] Nancy Pelosi, and insisting that we have a vote on this bill."</p>
<p>In a background briefing with reporters before Obama spoke, senior administration officials laid out the case that legislative delay does more damage to the Republicans responsible for holding up the jobs bill than to the bill's primary booster. A Fox News Poll released shortly thereafter appeared to underscore their premise. While 26 percent of respondents thought Obama had helped the economy and 45 percent thought he had hurt it, only 15 percent thought congressional Republicans had helped and 50 percent thought they had hurt the economy. </p>
<p>Still, legislative processes are rarely dictated by polling pressures. And while the president was publicly demanding a vote sometime in October, expectations have been adjusted a touch in private. </p>
<p>Those same senior administration officials said that the White House has been in talks with members of the super committee about both job creation legislation and their work in general. While the officials wouldn't go too far into specifics, they noted that this past summer the president and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had discussed including infrastructure spending, payroll tax cut relief and the extension of unemployment insurance in their proposed "grand bargain." </p>
<p>Obama has already asked the committee to find budget cuts to help cover the $447 billion cost of his jobs package. If he were to push the committee to include the jobs act itself as part of its recommendations, that would up the ante significantly more. </p>
<p>On the one hand, the jobs plan would be granted the same sort of procedural advantages (it can be neither filibustered nor amended) that the super committee's debt and deficit reduction suggestions will receive. On the other, the idea could potentially alienate the committee's six GOP members, who don't want to be seen as providing the critical votes for the president's chief jobs proposal. Seven of the 12 committee members must back the deficit recommendations before they can be sent to Congress. </p>
<p>A senior Democratic aide told The Huffington Post that the party is looking to find a "balanced approach to deficit reduction" that includes "efforts at job creation, most definitely including the president's" jobs plan. </p>
<p>But a top Democratic operative who has been privy to debt and deficit reduction talks on the Hill said it was hardly a given that Obama's jobs plan will find its way into the super committee's recommendations, let alone receive a regular floor vote. That's not because the provision themselves are disagreeable, but because the measures to cover their cost -- namely, eliminating tax deductions for the wealthy, closing loopholes for corporate jet owners, and taxing subsidies for oil and gas companies -- have no cross-party support. </p>
<p>"To put it in the super committee, you would need to have pay-for provisions as well," the operative noted. "Not only can Republicans and Democrats not agree on those pay-fors; Democrats can't agree on those pay-fors."</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315392/thumbs/s-ALSO-ON-THE-HUFFINGTON-POST-hugebw.jpg"></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517169222&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
White House Talks Jobs With Super Committee Memberstag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9923922011-10-03T18:07:00Z2011-12-03T10:12:02ZWASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama pushed Congress again on Monday to bring his American Jobs Act to a vote, promising to "put as much pressure"...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- President Barack Obama pushed Congress again on Monday to bring his American Jobs Act to a vote, promising to "put as much pressure" as he could on lawmakers to act with haste. But with growing recalcitrance among Republicans, resistance among some Democrats and an election season heating up, the prospects for quick action look increasingly slim. </p>
<p>The Democratic leadership is now taking more seriously the possibility that if components of the jobs plan are to be enacted, they'll have to be attached to the recommendations produced by the congressional super committee in charge of finding $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction. </p>
<p>On Monday, the president offered his customary insistence about passing his plan -- which includes major tax cuts to encourage hiring, insurance for the unemployed, and money for infrastructure and school repair -- in an expedient manner. </p>
<p>"It's been several weeks now since I sent up the American Jobs Act, and as I've been saying on the road, I want it back. I'm ready to sign it," he said. "My expectation is, now that we're in the month of October, that we'll schedule a vote before the end of this month. I'll be talking to Senator Reid, [Senator] McConnell, as well as Speaker Boehner and [Representative] Nancy Pelosi, and insisting that we have a vote on this bill."</p>
<p>In a background briefing with reporters before Obama spoke, senior administration officials laid out the case that legislative delay does more damage to the Republicans responsible for holding up the jobs bill than to the bill's primary booster. A Fox News Poll released shortly thereafter appeared to underscore their premise. While 26 percent of respondents thought Obama had helped the economy and 45 percent thought he had hurt it, only 15 percent thought congressional Republicans had helped and 50 percent thought they had hurt the economy. </p>
<p>Still, legislative processes are rarely dictated by polling pressures. And while the president was publicly demanding a vote sometime in October, expectations have been adjusted a touch in private. </p>
<p>Those same senior administration officials said that the White House has been in talks with members of the super committee about both job creation legislation and their work in general. While the officials wouldn't go too far into specifics, they noted that this past summer the president and House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) had discussed including infrastructure spending, payroll tax cut relief and the extension of unemployment insurance in their proposed "grand bargain." </p>
<p>Obama has already asked the committee to find budget cuts to help cover the $447 billion cost of his jobs package. If he were to push the committee to include the jobs act itself as part of its recommendations, that would up the ante significantly more. </p>
<p>On the one hand, the jobs plan would be granted the same sort of procedural advantages (it can be neither filibustered nor amended) that the super committee's debt and deficit reduction suggestions will receive. On the other, the idea could potentially alienate the committee's six GOP members, who don't want to be seen as providing the critical votes for the president's chief jobs proposal. Seven of the 12 committee members must back the deficit recommendations before they can be sent to Congress. </p>
<p>A senior Democratic aide told The Huffington Post that the party is looking to find a "balanced approach to deficit reduction" that includes "efforts at job creation, most definitely including the president's" jobs plan. </p>
<p>But a top Democratic operative who has been privy to debt and deficit reduction talks on the Hill said it was hardly a given that Obama's jobs plan will find its way into the super committee's recommendations, let alone receive a regular floor vote. That's not because the provision themselves are disagreeable, but because the measures to cover their cost -- namely, eliminating tax deductions for the wealthy, closing loopholes for corporate jet owners, and taxing subsidies for oil and gas companies -- have no cross-party support. </p>
<p>"To put it in the super committee, you would need to have pay-for provisions as well," the operative noted. "Not only can Republicans and Democrats not agree on those pay-fors; Democrats can't agree on those pay-fors."</p>
<p><img src="http://i.huffpost.com/gen/315392/thumbs/s-ALSO-ON-THE-HUFFINGTON-POST-hugebw.jpg"></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517169222&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Chris Christie Defended By Civil Rights Group For The Obesetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9896482011-09-30T23:00:00Z2011-11-30T10:12:03ZWASHINGTON -- One of the leading civil rights organizations working to end discrimination against the obese is taking up the defense of New Jersey Governor...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- One of the leading civil rights organizations working to end discrimination against the obese is taking up the defense of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie amid growing commentary that his weight could pose a problem for his presidential ambitions. </p>
<p>Peggy Howell, the public relations director of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, called the discussion around Christie a "ridiculous" effort to stigmatize the obese and distract from the governor's actual politics. </p>
<p>"I see it as a tactic to try and take attention away from his accomplishments and instead focus on his body size," she said. "Do people have a bias against President Obama because he smokes? Why should there be any difference in supporting a leader who smokes cigarettes or a leader who has a little extra weight on his body? Neither are perceived to be healthy choices."</p>
<p>There was, Howell added, a history of weight discussion being interjected into presidential politics, whether it surround Bill Clinton's diet, George W. Bush's propensity to exercise, Obama's thin frame, or the slimming down of former Governor Mike Huckabee prior to the 2008 campaign -- a diet regime that was interpreted as a prerequisite for a White House run. The Christie chatter simply fit the mold, she argued. But that doesn't make it correct. </p>
<p>"I'm not his doctor, but obviously he is a very active man, and I think it is ridiculous for anyone to believe that he would not be able to serve," Howell said. "This is definitely biased and definitely a stigmatization based solely on his body size." </p>
<p>On Friday, the incessant, endless speculation about Christie's presidential aspirations finally manifested itself in discussion about the Governor's girth, with a slew of columnists deciding to break the seal on the taboo subject. </p>
<p>No consensus was reached. <em>Bloomberg</em>'s Michael Kinsley <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-30/requiem-for-a-governor-before-he-s-in-the-ring-michael-kinsley.html" target="_hplink">made the case</a> that it presented problems for a presidential bid, mainly because it exposed a lack of personal discipline. Eugene Robinson of the <em>Washington Post</em> reached a similar conclusion but for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chris-christies-big-problem/2011/09/29/gIQAAL7J8K_story.html?hpid=z2" target="_hplink">different reasons</a>, writing that it led to questions about Christie's health. The <em>Post</em>'s Ezra Klein <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/chris-christie-is-not-too-fat-to-be-president/2011/08/25/gIQAVuzcAL_blog.html" target="_hplink">took an</a> alternate route, writing that: "there’s no real reason to think that Christie isn’t up to the job of being president, or that he’s at a particularly high risk of keeling over should he take office."<br />
<br />
Howell noted that there was really no medical literature tying obesity to personal discipline, saying genetics are instead to blame. As for the health considerations, she was equally insistent that there were no correlations between life expectancy and weight -- though there is strong evidence that artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, orthopedic and respiratory issues, among other things, are worsened by obesity. </p>
<p>Medical issues are certainly fair and common game in the context of vetting a presidential candidate (see: John McCain's history with melanoma). What sets the Christie weight-talk apart is that he isn't running, at least not yet. When asked to assess whether a Christie candidacy would helpful for lifting the stigma over obesity, Howell downplayed the premise of the question. </p>
<p>"If [a successful run by the governor] would significantly change things that would be wonderful," she said. "But I have my doubts that that would have any significant changes. I think it is more likely that Chris will succumb to the pressure of other people to start losing weight. It seems to be an act of human nature. It seems to be what many people who have become popular, famous or well known do, in spite of their size."</p>
<p><strong>Related Video:</strong></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517170000&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Chris Christie Defended By Civil Rights Group For The Obesetag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9896482011-09-30T23:00:00Z2011-11-30T10:12:03ZWASHINGTON -- One of the leading civil rights organizations working to end discrimination against the obese is taking up the defense of New Jersey Governor...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- One of the leading civil rights organizations working to end discrimination against the obese is taking up the defense of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie amid growing commentary that his weight could pose a problem for his presidential ambitions. </p>
<p>Peggy Howell, the public relations director of the National Association to Advance Fat Acceptance, called the discussion around Christie a "ridiculous" effort to stigmatize the obese and distract from the governor's actual politics. </p>
<p>"I see it as a tactic to try and take attention away from his accomplishments and instead focus on his body size," she said. "Do people have a bias against President Obama because he smokes? Why should there be any difference in supporting a leader who smokes cigarettes or a leader who has a little extra weight on his body? Neither are perceived to be healthy choices."</p>
<p>There was, Howell added, a history of weight discussion being interjected into presidential politics, whether it surround Bill Clinton's diet, George W. Bush's propensity to exercise, Obama's thin frame, or the slimming down of former Governor Mike Huckabee prior to the 2008 campaign -- a diet regime that was interpreted as a prerequisite for a White House run. The Christie chatter simply fit the mold, she argued. But that doesn't make it correct. </p>
<p>"I'm not his doctor, but obviously he is a very active man, and I think it is ridiculous for anyone to believe that he would not be able to serve," Howell said. "This is definitely biased and definitely a stigmatization based solely on his body size." </p>
<p>On Friday, the incessant, endless speculation about Christie's presidential aspirations finally manifested itself in discussion about the Governor's girth, with a slew of columnists deciding to break the seal on the taboo subject. </p>
<p>No consensus was reached. <em>Bloomberg</em>'s Michael Kinsley <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-30/requiem-for-a-governor-before-he-s-in-the-ring-michael-kinsley.html" target="_hplink">made the case</a> that it presented problems for a presidential bid, mainly because it exposed a lack of personal discipline. Eugene Robinson of the <em>Washington Post</em> reached a similar conclusion but for <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/chris-christies-big-problem/2011/09/29/gIQAAL7J8K_story.html?hpid=z2" target="_hplink">different reasons</a>, writing that it led to questions about Christie's health. The <em>Post</em>'s Ezra Klein <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/chris-christie-is-not-too-fat-to-be-president/2011/08/25/gIQAVuzcAL_blog.html" target="_hplink">took an</a> alternate route, writing that: "there’s no real reason to think that Christie isn’t up to the job of being president, or that he’s at a particularly high risk of keeling over should he take office."<br />
<br />
Howell noted that there was really no medical literature tying obesity to personal discipline, saying genetics are instead to blame. As for the health considerations, she was equally insistent that there were no correlations between life expectancy and weight -- though there is strong evidence that artery disease, diabetes, hypertension, orthopedic and respiratory issues, among other things, are worsened by obesity. </p>
<p>Medical issues are certainly fair and common game in the context of vetting a presidential candidate (see: John McCain's history with melanoma). What sets the Christie weight-talk apart is that he isn't running, at least not yet. When asked to assess whether a Christie candidacy would helpful for lifting the stigma over obesity, Howell downplayed the premise of the question. </p>
<p>"If [a successful run by the governor] would significantly change things that would be wonderful," she said. "But I have my doubts that that would have any significant changes. I think it is more likely that Chris will succumb to the pressure of other people to start losing weight. It seems to be an act of human nature. It seems to be what many people who have become popular, famous or well known do, in spite of their size."</p>
<p><strong>Related Video:</strong></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517170000&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Who's In And Who's Out Of The Donald Trump Primarytag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9894532011-09-30T21:11:00Z2011-11-30T10:12:03ZWASHINGTON -- Despite giving up his phantom campaign months ago, real estate mogul Donald Trump evidently has had an imprint on the Republican presidential primary....Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- Despite giving up his phantom campaign months ago, real estate mogul Donald Trump evidently has had an imprint on the Republican presidential primary. Three candidates -- Rep. Michele Bachmann, Texas Gov. Rick Perry and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney -- have met with Trump, as has perpetual campaign flirt Sarah Palin. A fourth candidate, business executive Herman Cain, is set to rub elbows with Trump this week.</p>
<p>And while Romney scurried away from the Trump Tower hoping to avoid photographers waiting outside, <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/26/donald-trumps-2012_n_980898.html" target="_hplink">he and others clearly calculated</a> that it was better to embrace the Donald than to risk his ire. </p>
<p>Then there is Jon Huntsman, the former Utah governor who has staked his candidacy on running what constitutes a reason-based campaign. In that context, his team has figured there's more to gain from picking fights with Trump than in sucking up to him. </p>
<p>When Romney went to visit Trump, Huntsman spokesman Tim Miller mocked the move. </p>
<p>"Hoping Romney wins the Trump endorsement today. Birtherism, trade wars, & helicoptering to press conferences really resonate in NH," <a href="http://storify.com/mjenkins/huntsman-vs-trump" target="_hplink">Miller tweeted</a>. </p>
<p>And when Trump responded by saying he wouldn't waste his time meeting with a candidate who "has zero chance of getting the nomination," Miller responded in kind. </p>
<blockquote>@JonHuntsman isn't wasting his time w/ Presidential Apprentice. His focus is on real solutions to fix our economy.</blockquote>
<p>It stands to reason that Huntsman will not be making a pilgrimage to Trump Tower any time soon. So when Trump <a href="http://twitter.com/#!/realDonaldTrump/statuses/119805303117185025" target="_hplink">tweeted on Friday</a> that he had not returned a call from Huntsman to set up a meeting, it was either a symbolic reversal or simply misinformation. </p>
<p>The Huntsman campaign says it's the latter. His candidate didn't call Trump on Friday, Miller told The Huffington Post. </p>
<script src="http://storify.com/mjenkins/huntsman-vs-trump.js"></script><noscript>[<a href="http://storify.com/mjenkins/huntsman-vs-trump" target="blank">View the story "Huntsman Campaign vs. Trump" on Storify]</a></noscript>
<p><br />
<strong>Earlier on HuffPost:</strong></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517149308&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Was Romney On The Receiving End Of A Potentially Illegal Donation?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9891262011-09-30T18:50:43Z2011-11-30T10:12:03ZWASHINGTON -- Was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on the receiving end of a potentially illegal campaign donation? That question is being bandied about by...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- Was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on the receiving end of a potentially illegal campaign donation? </p>
<p>That question is being bandied about by Democrats and good government groups upon close reading of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/magazine/a-crisis-of-confidence-deep-in-the-heart-of-texas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all" target="_hplink">an upcoming <em>New York Times</em> magazine story</a> on the political machinations and home-state standing of Romney's top competitor, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The piece, which has been online for a few days and is set to run in print this Sunday, ends with an anonymous "influential Houston Republican," explaining that he "had someone else pay" for him to attend a Romney fundraiser out of fear of retribution should Perry's people find out. </p>
<p>The ethics of the anecdote depend entirely on who actually paid for the ticket. If the "influential Houston Republican" had someone else both give him or her the ticket and cover its cost, it's not a problem. But if he or she reimbursed that person for the ticket, it is. That Houston Republican would, in that case, be donating to the Romney campaign without revealing himself or herself as the source of the donation. </p>
<p>"It is a little fuzzy," said Fred Wertheimer, the founder and president of the good government group Democracy 21. "What may have happened is that the other person paid for it and the other person's name showed up on the list of donors. And if he gives him the ticket, then that's legal. But if he gave him the money to pay for [the ticket], then he is masking his name. You have to know whose money this is in order to know." </p>
<p>So did the "influential Houston Republican" have someone simply conduct the act of paying for the ticket, or did he or she have that person actually pay for it? </p>
<p>The author of the article, Mimi Swartz, told The Huffington Post she wasn't sure. She suspected that her source did reimburse the cost, but when she tried to follow up, she got no response. The Romney campaign, for its part, appears to be off the hook here. As long as the person who made the contribution is the person who shows up on the FEC report, anyone can attend the fundraiser. In other words, making a contribution gets you a ticket but it doesn't restrict what you do with -- or whom you give -- that ticket. </p>
<p>Still, <em>The New York Times</em> magazine anecdote is a useful one to highlight, not just because it underscores the culture of political fear that exists in Texas, but also because it illustrates a recurring shortcoming in campaign finance disclosure. Usually, the examples are more blatant and egregious, like when pyramid investor Norman Hsu illegally bundled and reimbursed his campaign donations to, among others, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. But they happen nearly every election. </p>
<p>"It is one of the more common serious violations of the campaign finance law. It comes up every election cycle," said Larry Noble, an authority on campaign finance law who works for the firm Skadden Arps. "Every election cycle we have these. Often a CEO will give his employees money and say, 'make a contribution.'"</p>
<p><strong>Earlier on HuffPost:</strong></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517167450&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>
Was Romney On The Receiving End Of A Potentially Illegal Donation?tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2011:/thenewswire//2.9891262011-09-30T18:50:43Z2011-11-30T10:12:03ZWASHINGTON -- Was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on the receiving end of a potentially illegal campaign donation? That question is being bandied about by...Sam Steinhttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-stein/
<p>WASHINGTON -- Was former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on the receiving end of a potentially illegal campaign donation? </p>
<p>That question is being bandied about by Democrats and good government groups upon close reading of <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/02/magazine/a-crisis-of-confidence-deep-in-the-heart-of-texas.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all" target="_hplink">an upcoming <em>New York Times</em> magazine story</a> on the political machinations and home-state standing of Romney's top competitor, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. The piece, which has been online for a few days and is set to run in print this Sunday, ends with an anonymous "influential Houston Republican," explaining that he "had someone else pay" for him to attend a Romney fundraiser out of fear of retribution should Perry's people find out. </p>
<p>The ethics of the anecdote depend entirely on who actually paid for the ticket. If the "influential Houston Republican" had someone else both give him or her the ticket and cover its cost, it's not a problem. But if he or she reimbursed that person for the ticket, it is. That Houston Republican would, in that case, be donating to the Romney campaign without revealing himself or herself as the source of the donation. </p>
<p>"It is a little fuzzy," said Fred Wertheimer, the founder and president of the good government group Democracy 21. "What may have happened is that the other person paid for it and the other person's name showed up on the list of donors. And if he gives him the ticket, then that's legal. But if he gave him the money to pay for [the ticket], then he is masking his name. You have to know whose money this is in order to know." </p>
<p>So did the "influential Houston Republican" have someone simply conduct the act of paying for the ticket, or did he or she have that person actually pay for it? </p>
<p>The author of the article, Mimi Swartz, told The Huffington Post she wasn't sure. She suspected that her source did reimburse the cost, but when she tried to follow up, she got no response. The Romney campaign, for its part, appears to be off the hook here. As long as the person who made the contribution is the person who shows up on the FEC report, anyone can attend the fundraiser. In other words, making a contribution gets you a ticket but it doesn't restrict what you do with -- or whom you give -- that ticket. </p>
<p>Still, <em>The New York Times</em> magazine anecdote is a useful one to highlight, not just because it underscores the culture of political fear that exists in Texas, but also because it illustrates a recurring shortcoming in campaign finance disclosure. Usually, the examples are more blatant and egregious, like when pyramid investor Norman Hsu illegally bundled and reimbursed his campaign donations to, among others, Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign. But they happen nearly every election. </p>
<p>"It is one of the more common serious violations of the campaign finance law. It comes up every election cycle," said Larry Noble, an authority on campaign finance law who works for the firm Skadden Arps. "Every election cycle we have these. Often a CEO will give his employees money and say, 'make a contribution.'"</p>
<p><strong>Earlier on HuffPost:</strong></p>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://pshared.5min.com/Scripts/PlayerSeed.js?sid=577&width=548&height=398&colorPallet=%239FC5E8&companionPos=bottom&hasCompanion=false&relatedMode=2&relatedBottomHeight=60&videoControlDisplayColor=%23006699&autoStart=false&playList=517167450&aol_level=HuffPost:Politics"></script>